Add Garland Attackers To List Of Names That Prove Background Checks Don’t Work

By AWR Hawkins

Garland Texas Shooters
Add Garland Attackers To List Of Names That Prove Background Checks Don’t Work
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -( On May 5 2015 CNN reported that the two gunmen who attacked Garland’s Curtis Culwell Center acquired their guns “legally.”

The use of the word “legally” implies that the two alleged gunmen–Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi–went through background checks to acquire their weapons. This makes them only the latest in a long list of high profile examples which prove that background checks are an ineffective way to fight crime.

Here is an updated list of high profile attackers who passed background checks for their guns:

Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Aaron Ybarra (Seattle Pacific University), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), and Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), and Naveed Haq (Seattle).

Ironically, since 1791 Americans have purchased their guns privately from co-workers, friends, family, neighbors, and other decent people who might be selling a gun to get the four or five hundred dollars they need to make ends meet on a given month. But the left stepped in during the Clinton presidency and told us we were not safe without background checks. Thus background checks for all retail gun purchases were implemented.

And now, Gabby Giffords, her husband Mark Kelly, and outspoken gun control advocate Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) tell us that an expansion of background checks–so as to include private sales as well–is the “responsible” thing to do.

Yet the Garland attackers stand in stark contrast to these claims and expose the fact that Americans are trading freedom for constraint via background checks, and getting nothing but attacked in return.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wait one minuet, at least one of the terrorists in the Garland attack was a convicted felon. So CNN is lying again per usual !!!

Daniel O'Kelly

Who said a background check keeps someone from committing a crime after they obtain the gun? A background check shows whether you’ve already done something that makes you a prohibited person. It keeps the 8 categories of people who have to answer “yes to the questions on a 4473 from getting a gun, as well as known terrorism suspects. I couldn’t be more pro-gun, but good luck trying to justify background checks as a bad thing. All you’re doing is giving ammo to the anti-gunners, by making yourself look like you don’t want to weed out as many criminals as… Read more »


Be careful. They will use that information for creating total bans, as background checks didn’t work.


“Those who trade basic liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety and will eventually loose both.” Benjamin Franklin

“Those who would not remember history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana




I guess they would rather throw rocks and Molotov cocktails as the rioters do in Ferguson and Baltimore.

Roger V. Tranfaglia

We are getting attacked alright….from out of country agitators,physically AND verbally, as well as our own countrymen. [physically AND verbally] Who, for some reason, feel that we should NOT be able to defend ourselves…………….


Or they bought the guns from gun shows that didn’t do background checks or did private sales. Both are legal and don’t have background checks. Also if they didn’t commit crimes that would prohibit buying a firearm from a ffl or were not convicted they would pass a background check.

Also due to the NRA being on the terrorist watch list doesn’t prohibit you from buying guns.

Lee Cruse

So, how exactly are you going to keep the names on the people on the terrorist watch list from knowing they are listed if that is a reason for denial of gun ownership civil right? You can not have it both ways.
If you are on the denial list, you can not “legally” obtain a gun so indeed “legal” implies either passed background check or would have passed background check. The conclusion in the article is 100% correct in either case.


You can be put on watch list or no fly list without any form of judicial review or appeal. That certainly worries me. One of the terrorist was on probation so I wonder if the conviction for making a false statement to FBI is a felony>


You just made the point for how worthless “universal” background checks are. All your scenarios are legal purchases, whether the check is conducted or not. And if legal, the buyer would pass a check at any time. Constitutional law presumes innocence, not guilt. Background checks presume guilt, until proven innocent. They are also a former of “poll tax” to restrict exercising individual rights.